Mohammedan invader asks Germans, and all Europeans, a very good question

[Tambora]

Allahu Akbar!

The left loves these guys and thinks they are just misunderstood.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I really don't know how you can watch the video Musty posted and act like it's Musty that is a disgusting crackpot for posting it.
Half the time your animosity is aimed at the wrong people.

Easily, because he's a nut. He's claimed that the UK could be under sharia law in a matter of decades and that type of crackpot mentality is so out of touch with reality it's beyond a joke, just as when some conservative reporter claimed that the second largest city in the UK was a complete no go area for non Muslims a while back.

If you're gonna get your "news" from Twitter, nutball sites and blog accounts then don't be surprised to be open to outright mockery and ridicule over it. Chances are he'll allude to anyone who doesn't agree with his assessment to be a 'disinfo agent' again.

:freak:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Allahu Akbar!

The left loves these guys and thinks they are just misunderstood.

Well, no. What your definition of "left" is exactly is anyone's guess but I haven't seen anyone tolerate terrorism or have any sympathy for it either. Far from it.

 

[Nihilo]

And a Muslim terrorist lover.

To be deep in history is to cease to be against the right to keep and bear arms. You never know when someone is going to start imagining that you are a threat to them, and then start trying to kill you. History is littered with people doing that. It's always a good idea to be well armed.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Experts have concluded the building was made by this guy:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

To be deep in history is to cease to be against the right to keep and bear arms. You never know when someone is going to start imagining that you are a threat to them, and then start trying to kill you. History is littered with people doing that. It's always a good idea to be well armed.

 

[musterion]

Meanwhile, the British lion boldly decides to deal with the true threat among the people -- a moron with a pug.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/05/man-taught-dog-nazi-salutes-convicted-hate-crime-7207577/

 

[Jonahdog]

You lying moron.

And the ban on bump stocks is where? Oh wait, that's right, the 2nd Amendment and the need to leave nothing of Bambi but spots.
The Rethugs are too cowardly to stand up to the NRA (you know the lobby for the maximization of weapon maker's profits, oh wait, again, I mean the lobby for the 2nd Amendment).

 

[Tambora]

And the ban on bump stocks is where? Oh wait, that's right, the 2nd Amendment and the need to leave nothing of Bambi but spots.
The Rethugs are too cowardly to stand up to the NRA (you know the lobby for the maximization of weapon maker's profits, oh wait, again, I mean the lobby for the 2nd Amendment).

You hate the Constitution too.

 

[Tambora]

Meanwhile, the British lion boldly decides to deal with the true threat among the people -- a moron with a pug.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/05/man-taught-dog-nazi-salutes-convicted-hate-crime-7207577/

People go berserk over petty things.
Meanwhile, real threats from Muslims spitting, clobbering, throwing acid, bombing, raping, killing, open defiance of laws, etc. all over the world.

 

[The Barbarian]

You never know when someone is going to start imagining that you are a threat to them, and then start trying to kill you. History is littered with people doing that. It's always a good idea to be well armed.

A lot of Americans who happen to be Muslims probably agree with you, right now.
From 2001 to 2015, there were 2,545 anti-Islamic incidents targeting 3,052 Muslims, according to the FBI. Last year, anti-Muslim hate times surged 67%, reaching a level of violence not seen since the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and many Muslims believe hate crimes are underreported by victims and not pursued vigorously by police and prosecutors. This year, the FBI has begun counting anti-Arab incidents as well.
Politicians have claimed that 85% of mosques are controlled by Islamic extremists and that Islam is a political system, not a religion, and thus not protected by the First Amendment. They have threatened to "arrest every Muslim that comes across the state line" and pledged to bar Muslim refugees from the country. They have sanctioned spying on mosques without warrants and the racial profiling of Muslim communities. They have accused Muslims of launching a "civilizational jihad" and called Islam a "cancer in our nation that needs to be cut out." They have shut down schools over lessons on Islam and called innocuous school materials dangerous propaganda. More than 30 states have considered bills to "protect" their civil courts from Islamic law, and nine states (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee) enacted the bans. They have said Muslims cannot be president of the United States. They have said Muslims should not be here at all.
Challenged about Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, his spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, said, "So what? They're Muslim."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/us/islamerica-excerpt-hate-crimes/index.html

If I was an American Muslim, I know I'd have a weapon. The odds are, even with all these attacks on American Muslims, I'd never have to use it. But clearly Muslims have much more to fear from religious terrorism than I do.

 

[jsanford108]

And then there's this...

Criminals? Immigrants are more law-abiding than native-born Americans
Higher Immigration is Associated with Lower Crime Rates

Between 1990 and 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population grew from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent and the number of unauthorized immigrants more than tripled from 3.5 million to 11.2 million.
During the same period, FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48 percent—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41 percent, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.

Immigrants are Less Likely than the Native-Born to Be Behind Bars

According to an original analysis of data from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the authors of this report, roughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born. This disparity in incarceration rates has existed for decades, as evidenced by data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses. In each of those years, the incarceration rates of the native-born were anywhere from two to five times higher than that of immigrants.
The 2010 Census data reveals that incarceration rates among the young, less-educated Mexican, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan men who make up the bulk of the unauthorized population are significantly lower than the incarceration rate among native-born young men without a high-school diploma. In 2010, less-educated native-born men age 18-39 had an incarceration rate of 10.7 percent—more than triple the 2.8 percent rate among foreign-born Mexican men, and five times greater than the 1.7 percent rate among foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men.

Immigrants are Less Likely Than the Native-Born to Engage in Criminal Behavior

A variety of different studies using different methodologies have found that immigrants are less likely than the native-born to engage in either violent or nonviolent “antisocial” behaviors; that immigrants are less likely than the native-born to be repeat offenders among “high risk” adolescents; and that immigrant youth who were students in U.S. middle and high schools in the mid-1990s and are now young adults have among the lowest delinquency rates of all young people.
http://immigrationimpact.com/2015/0...-likely-to-be-criminals-than-the-native-born/

This information demonstrates correlation, not causation.

I could also attribute less crime due to higher numbers of guns being owned by the civilian population. Once again, correlation, not causation. I could also attribute less crime to higher numbers of ice cream sales per year; correlation, not causation.

 

[jsanford108]

And then there's this...

Criminals? Immigrants are more law-abiding than native-born Americans
Higher Immigration is Associated with Lower Crime Rates

Between 1990 and 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population grew from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent and the number of unauthorized immigrants more than tripled from 3.5 million to 11.2 million.
During the same period, FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48 percent—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41 percent, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.

Immigrants are Less Likely than the Native-Born to Be Behind Bars

According to an original analysis of data from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the authors of this report, roughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born. This disparity in incarceration rates has existed for decades, as evidenced by data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses. In each of those years, the incarceration rates of the native-born were anywhere from two to five times higher than that of immigrants.
The 2010 Census data reveals that incarceration rates among the young, less-educated Mexican, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan men who make up the bulk of the unauthorized population are significantly lower than the incarceration rate among native-born young men without a high-school diploma. In 2010, less-educated native-born men age 18-39 had an incarceration rate of 10.7 percent—more than triple the 2.8 percent rate among foreign-born Mexican men, and five times greater than the 1.7 percent rate among foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men.

Immigrants are Less Likely Than the Native-Born to Engage in Criminal Behavior

A variety of different studies using different methodologies have found that immigrants are less likely than the native-born to engage in either violent or nonviolent “antisocial” behaviors; that immigrants are less likely than the native-born to be repeat offenders among “high risk” adolescents; and that immigrant youth who were students in U.S. middle and high schools in the mid-1990s and are now young adults have among the lowest delinquency rates of all young people.
http://immigrationimpact.com/2015/0...-likely-to-be-criminals-than-the-native-born/

A lot of Americans who happen to be Muslims probably agree with you, right now.
From 2001 to 2015, there were 2,545 anti-Islamic incidents targeting 3,052 Muslims, according to the FBI. Last year, anti-Muslim hate times surged 67%, reaching a level of violence not seen since the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and many Muslims believe hate crimes are underreported by victims and not pursued vigorously by police and prosecutors. This year, the FBI has begun counting anti-Arab incidents as well.
Politicians have claimed that 85% of mosques are controlled by Islamic extremists and that Islam is a political system, not a religion, and thus not protected by the First Amendment. They have threatened to "arrest every Muslim that comes across the state line" and pledged to bar Muslim refugees from the country. They have sanctioned spying on mosques without warrants and the racial profiling of Muslim communities. They have accused Muslims of launching a "civilizational jihad" and called Islam a "cancer in our nation that needs to be cut out." They have shut down schools over lessons on Islam and called innocuous school materials dangerous propaganda. More than 30 states have considered bills to "protect" their civil courts from Islamic law, and nine states (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee) enacted the bans. They have said Muslims cannot be president of the United States. They have said Muslims should not be here at all.
Challenged about Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, his spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, said, "So what? They're Muslim."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/us/islamerica-excerpt-hate-crimes/index.html

If I was an American Muslim, I know I'd have a weapon. The odds are, even with all these attacks on American Muslims, I'd never have to use it. But clearly Muslims have much more to fear from religious terrorism than I do.

Do you notice that your source is making deductions that they agree with, rather than simply demonstrating what the evidence shows? None of these conclusions by CNN are made by the FBI, nor are they based on the evidence shown by the FBI in regards to Islam/Terrorism.

A simple google search would have revealed that: https://www.google.com/search?q=fbi...rome..69i57.3870j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Jonahdog]

You hate the Constitution too.

Nope. But the Constitution does not give unfettered access to weapons despite what the NRA would like you to think. The 2nd Amendment is not carte blanche

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you notice that your source is making deductions that they agree with, rather than simply demonstrating what the evidence shows?

First, a conclusion based on evidence is an induction, not a deduction.
Second, their conclusion, based on the actual evidence, is that immigrants in this country are more law-abiding than native-born Americans, and that Muslims in America are often targeted for violence because they are Muslims, with many people, including public officials proposing to deny them basic rights. A Trump spokesman, commenting on the Muslim ban overturned by the courts: "So what? They're Muslim."

These conclusions are well-founded in the cited evidence.

A simple google search would have revealed that: https://www.google.com/search?q=fbi...rome..69i57.3870j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Nothing in your link denies either of these conclusions. Did you even read it?

 

[jsanford108]

Mohammedan invader asks Germans, and all Europeans, a very good question

First, a conclusion based on evidence is an induction, not a deduction.

Negative. One does not "induce" facts, except for leftists: they induce "facts" all the time, despite them being completely false.

Induction is the introduction of something, not the analysis of. If I am wrong, please provide a link to a scholastic definition.

Second, their conclusion, based on the actual evidence, is that immigrants in this country are more law-abiding than native-born Americans, and that Muslims in America are often targeted for violence because they are Muslims, with many people, including public officials proposing to deny them basic rights. A Trump spokesman, commenting on the Muslim ban overturned by the courts: "So what? They're Muslim."

I do not disagree that this is the conclusion made by your sourced article, and the conclusion that you accept. Yes, this conclusion is "induced," because it certainly is not deduced from actual evidence and facts.

If I am wrong, cite the FBI reports that demonstrate this. Your CNN article certainly does not.

Nothing in your link denies either of these conclusions. Did you even read it?

I did read it. My link was just a simple Google search, which revealed the actual data published by the FBI. Clicking on those would have led you to reports and statistics that do not support, in fact they negate, the conclusion claimed by CNN and yourself. Did you even take time to research it, or did you just readily accept whatever conclusion agrees with your subjective personal position?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[The Barbarian]

Negative. One does not "induce" facts, except for leftists: they induce "facts" all the time, despite them being completely false.

Induction is the introduction of something, not the analysis of. If I am wrong, please provide a link to a scholastic definition.

Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]

Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations, though some sources disagree with this usage.[2]

The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

I do not disagree that this is the conclusion made by your sourced article, and the conclusion that you accept. Yes, this conclusion is "induced," because it certainly is not deduced from actual evidence and facts.

You've confused deduction and induction, again. Deduction is when you know the rules and apply them to the particulars. Induction is when you observe the particulars and make your conclusion on that evidence. Deduction allows proofs and logical certainty. This is rarely the case in everyday life, where you must make decisions based on limited evidence, not absolute knowledge.

If I am wrong, cite the FBI reports that demonstrate this. Your CNN article certainly does not.

I did read it. My link was just a simple Google search, which revealed the actual data published by the FBI.

Then you are aware that the facts mentioned earlier are in no way contradicted by the FBI report. In fact, much of it is supported by the report.

 

[patrick jane]

How many muzzie threads does musty need? :idunno:

 

[jsanford108]

Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]

Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations, though some sources disagree with this usage.[2]

The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Excellent points, and thank you for the link. However, your linked, and explained, definition does not render the conclusion that CNN/you have claimed. However, your definition does explain that conclusion, and is quite applicable to said conclusion.

If you note, your linked definition goes on to say: "Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true." So, rather than using logic and progressive critical thinking to deduce a conclusion, several unrelated facts are strung together, along with personal extrapolations and opinions, in order to induce a conclusion.

You've confused deduction and induction, again. Deduction is when you know the rules and apply them to the particulars. Induction is when you observe the particulars and make your conclusion on that evidence. Deduction allows proofs and logical certainty. This is rarely the case in everyday life, where you must make decisions based on limited evidence, not absolute knowledge.

I would disagree. I have not confused terms. One does not get "deducted" into the Hall of Fame. Induction is the act of placing something within, not deriving from.

But, I do stand corrected. Your original statement/conclusion was induction. It was a conclusion place within the facts, not derived from.

Then you are aware that the facts mentioned earlier are in no way contradicted by the FBI report. In fact, much of it is supported by the report.

I never disagreed with the facts; I disagreed with the "conclusion" supposedly, and portrayed as, based on the facts (a clear implication of deduction).

But do not worry; you are right. Your and CNN's conclusion was induction. You were correct on that.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nihilo]

A lot of Americans who happen to be Muslims probably agree with you, right now.
From 2001 to 2015, there were 2,545 anti-Islamic incidents targeting 3,052 Muslims, according to the FBI. Last year, anti-Muslim hate times surged 67%, reaching a level of violence not seen since the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and many Muslims believe hate crimes are underreported by victims and not pursued vigorously by police and prosecutors. This year, the FBI has begun counting anti-Arab incidents as well.
Politicians have claimed that 85% of mosques are controlled by Islamic extremists and that Islam is a political system, not a religion, and thus not protected by the First Amendment. They have threatened to "arrest every Muslim that comes across the state line" and pledged to bar Muslim refugees from the country. They have sanctioned spying on mosques without warrants and the racial profiling of Muslim communities. They have accused Muslims of launching a "civilizational jihad" and called Islam a "cancer in our nation that needs to be cut out." They have shut down schools over lessons on Islam and called innocuous school materials dangerous propaganda. More than 30 states have considered bills to "protect" their civil courts from Islamic law, and nine states (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee) enacted the bans. They have said Muslims cannot be president of the United States. They have said Muslims should not be here at all.
Challenged about Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, his spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, said, "So what? They're Muslim."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/us/islamerica-excerpt-hate-crimes/index.html

If I was an American Muslim, I know I'd have a weapon. The odds are, even with all these attacks on American Muslims, I'd never have to use it. But clearly Muslims have much more to fear from religious terrorism than I do.

I agree. But also, Muslims took down the World Trade Center, so . . . .